Framing arguments: how words shape point of view
Dismaying fact: “rational” humans change their decisions based on the language of the choices.
In a famous 1981 experiment by Kahneman and Tversky, two versions of the exact same dilemma were presented to doctors, one framing the problem as a “gain” and one as a “loss.”
Faced with the same problem in different wording, doctors overwhelmingly switched their decision.
The situation: A new strain of flu is expected to kill 600 people. Two programs to combat the disease have been proposed.
Frame 1: If program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. If program B is adopted, there is a 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved and a 2/3 probability that no people will be saved. Which of the two programs would you favor?
When presented with this frame, 80% of doctors went with program A.
Frame 2: If program A is adopted, 400 people will die. If program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die and a two-thirds probability that 600 people will die. Which of the two programs would you favor?
Even though the probablilites are identical to Frame 1, when presented with this frame, 80% of doctors went with program B.
What does this mean?
George Lakoff, professor of Linguistics at UC Berkeley, points out that this framing language happens all the time (listen to an NPR article here). A few examples:
| Topic | Frame 1 | Frame 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Abortion | You’re killing a child (pro-life)/ partial-birth abortion | You’re ending a pregnancy (pro-choice)/ late-term abortion |
| Cutting Taxes | We’re giving “tax relief” to the burdened citizens (death tax) | We’re losing the “membership fees” that maintain our national infrastructure (estate tax) |
| Opposing Gay Marriage | We’re preserving tradition that defines marriage as between a man and woman | We’re restricting a human right from consenting adults simply because of sexual orientation |
| Environmental Laws | We’re protecting health | We’re stifling free enterprise |
| Darfur | Humanitarian aid for a genocide | Military intervention in civil war |
| Smoking Ban on Campus | Promoting overall health | Restricting individual freedom |
| Homicide Rates among Blacks | Correcting socioeconomic inequity | Intervening in violence-prone communities |
| Iraq Conflict | Bush: “Global war on terror” | Obama: “Overseas contingency operation” |
| Video Games | A waste of massive time on pointless entertainment | A major investment of time on complex learning tasks |
| Cheaters |
All of the statements are true, but each puts the topic in starkly different light.
Read how whole stories can be frames
Is Framing Deceitful? Is it Propagandistic?
Lakoff draws a line between framing and propaganda. Framing is stating a truth. Propaganda states an untruth or something that cannot be proved. That said, framing can be manipulative if the framer is intentionally trying to show only one perspective. If you get a sniff of “framing language,” ask yourself: what other valid ways could this issue be framed?
Issue: Our country’s policy toward a foreign dictatorship called Oceania
Frame 1: Economic bonds with Oceania will give us more influence over the dictator. Therefore we should trade with Oceania.
Frame 2: Oceania’s leader restricts human rights. Therefore we should not trade with Oceania.
Propaganda 1: Oceania’s leader cares deeply about his people. That’s why he controls them. Therefore we should improve their economy through trade.
Propaganda 2: Oceania is an evil empire run by a monster. Therefore we should cut off all trade.
How to apply it to writing
Think of framing language as a way of exploring perspectives on a subject. Examine the wording you use to describe an issue. Is what assumptions is that language making? How might others see it differently?
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102318552